The link above contains a compilation of over 60 scientific papers with “extremely low” (numerically ranging from 0.02°C to <1°C) estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to a 100% increase in CO2 concentrations (i.e., an increase from 285 ppm to 570 ppm).

A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius. Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C.

Abstract

Over 200,000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T [temperature increase of] < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K.

CO2 ‘Very Weak’, IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’

Based on all these facts, we conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.

[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. The main problem is probably caused by the lack of considering the occupation probabilities of the energy levels.

We have calculated ∆Fmax and ∆Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.

At pre-industrial times, we had cco2 = 285 ppm. The resulting temperature increase [since pre-industrial] according to Eq. (11) only amounts to ∆T < 0.12 K.

Solar Activity Correlates With Temperature, Non-Positive Feedbacks

Lu [and co-authors, 2013] establishes a correlation of ∆T with solar activity, cosmic rays and ozone reactions with fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. According to his result, CO2 only plays a minor role in the temperature evolution since pre-industrial times. Our calculation is compatible with his finding.

There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.

Conclusion

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2. We find that the increase of CO2 only might become dangerous, if the concentrations are considerably greater than 4000 ppm. At present rates of increase this would take more than 200 years. Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity. The climate change must have a very different origin and the scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry.

So he’s worked out from first principles how much energy is absorbed from the earth, by the CO2 molecules, then translated that into a steady state temperature rise. His upper limit on this rise assumes that the earth is an ideal black body and that all of the absorbed energy is converted to heat.

I’ve a couple of questions – can anybody help me out?

What else would it be converted into if not – ultimately – heat?
Presumably he is not accounting for convection within the atmosphere? Would this affect his results?

Andy G55: Once the Earth turns away from the Sun an enormous amount of heat is lost to Space. Secondarily the largest convection cells are from the Tropics as the Tropic of Cancer where heated air rises to the top of the atmosphere then travels North to the Arctic as this rising air pulls air from more northerly Latitudes ultimately the cold, dense air from the Arctic where the now ultra cold air from the top of the atmosphere crashes down onto the Arctic. The weakness of CO2 as a store of heat was noted long ago- forgive me as I am working from memory- such that, as described, there is NO linear response to rising CO2 levels. Heat exchange with dark Space (at night) is the ultimate heat sink due to the enormous difference in temperatures between a GMAT (global Mean Average Temperature) of 15 Celsius and Minus 276.5 Celsius.

Well, that “paper” is of similar style as the paper last week that claimed all warming comes from adjusting data (which is false). It’s not much more than a blog post by some climate denier (he mentions Lindzen, a well-known denier).

Sorry for using the word “denier” in this comment.

P.S: that paper was on EIKE almost a year ago … is this a new revision?

“Well, that ‘paper’ is of similar style as the paper last week that claimed all warming comes from adjusting data (which is false).”

So instead of substantively addressing the actual content of the paper itself, you have chosen to employ the rather unpersuasive “it’s-not-a-paper” argument. It’s only a “blog post”. Interestingly, this scientific paper was located using Google Scholar.

“It’s not much more than a blog post by some climate denier (he mentions Lindzen, a well-known denier).”

Another tactic employed here is to call this Swiss physics professor who has authored hundreds of scientific papers a “climate denier”. (How does one deny the climate, and what, exactly, does that mean?). Name-calling, especially in an attempt to ridicule and marginalize a scientist by equating Dr. Reinhart with those who deny the Holocaust ever occurred, has not previously shown to be an effective rebuttal (in my opinion).

Furthermore, SebastianH has decided to call Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and IPCC lead author who has published over 240 peer-reviewed scientific papers a “denier” as well. Of course, Dr. Lindzen agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, causes some warming (his 2011 paper was featured in the latest IPCC report), and that humans are altering the CO2 concentration with their emissions. He has, however, been instrumental in noting that water feedbacks are negative, not positive, which is why his estimate of the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentrations is 0.7 K.
—Lindzen and Choi, 2011As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than the possibilities estimated from the observations.
—
So apparently SebastianH believes that a scientist should be classified as a “denier” of the climate (?) if she or he calculates that the climate’s sensitivity to doubling CO2 is less than 1 degree (Dr. Reinhart has it as <0.25 K, Dr. Lindzen 0.7 K). Apparently there is a threshold of warming from CO2 a scientist must agree with/believe in before the advocates will refrain from name-calling, or using the pejorative word "denier". I am wondering what that warming threshold is.

How much warming from a doubling of CO2 must one believe in to avoid being classified as a “denier” of the climate? Please be specific. How much warming do you believe we shall experience upon CO2 doubling? 4 degrees C? 5 degrees C? 6 degrees C? Is 3 degrees of warming the lowest threshold one must believe in? Below that, one becomes a “climate denier”?

Similarly, how many meters of sea level rise by 2100 must one believe in to avoid being called a “climate denier”? Is 1 meter of SLR “denier”? How about 2 meters?

How many species extinctions by 2050 must one believe in to avoid being called a “climate denier”? Is one million the lower limit? How about 2 million species extinctions? Is that “denier”?

In responding to this question, SebastianH, please be very specific. I’d really like to know the values that distinguish the deniers from the non-deniers.

The thermodynamics is that the CO2, which is supposed to be causing warming of Earth’s surface, is in the upper tropical troposphere and that this region MUST be warming faster than anywhere else (this is the AGW science, not an interpretation).

Two YUGE problems with this.

First, hordes of measurements of this region of the atmosphere have failed to locate this alleged “hotspot.” In fact, NASA has reported that this region has been gently cooling for almost 40 years. So, this is a failure for AGW, a fatal failure.

Second, the upper tropical troposphere is -17 deg C and earth’s surface is 15 deg C. No IR from above is going to warm the surface as the surface is already warmer and will reflect the IR radiation back upward. It’s simply impossible, as a cool object cannot warm a warmer object; the energy levels of the warmer object equivalent to the cool object are already full.

Having failed completely, the AGW “scientists” gloss over the failure and pretend that CO2 in the atmosphere in general that causes warming.

A YUGE problem there, also, is that, in sunlight, CO2 is completely saturated, converting IR to heat and heat to IR constantly, and having no effect. [Do not forget that all climate models have sunlight 24/7 and no night-time.]

It is during the night that CO2 and water vapor, lacking an external energy input, convert heat energy in the air to IR that is then lost to space. This is easily observed on sunny days with scudding clouds; noting how quickly little breezes kick up in the cloud shadows as CO2 and water vapor rapidly cool the air and create density differences and breezes. Also, note how quickly the air chills after sunset; again, rapid action of CO2 and water vapor.[ And, by the way, “trapping” of energy is completely counter to the nature of these gases. They allow free flow of energy in both directions.]

On top of everything else, AGW “science” completely ignores the water cycle, in which water vaporization converts surface heat energy to water vapor (via the latent heat of water going from liquid to vapor), which then rises from convection, condenses at altitude, and cool precipitate falls beck to the surface. Up to 85% of Earth’s energy budget is moved to altitude by the water cycle. It is a YUGE heat engine, global in size, that IS a negative feedback on warming, as it naturally ramps up when the air (and evaporation) warms.

The energy moved by the water cycle is the “missing” energy that Trenberth is always moaning about as, in his “science” all energy is radiation only and thus the water cycle is ignored. He then pretends that the “missing heat” is lurking in the deep ocean waiting to jump out at us. It is his willfully simple science that creates his problems, but he needs it so to support his patently wrong conclusions

By the way, it is clear that global warming creates more species diversity, a wave of extinctions is NOT happening (more fake news), and it is cold that kills.

The only reason that people argue about the quality of data is because the data sets/their quality are so poor. The endless adjustments have made them even less reliable, and now not fit for scientific purpose.

Such evidence as we have (and I readily admit that it is poor) suggests that there is no real world correlation between CO2 as driving temperature, and suggests, if anything, that CO2 lags temperature change and is a response (not a driver).

Such evidence as we possess (and as I say this is poor and not fit for scientific purpose) puts Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) at zero or close thereto such that we are unable to presently measure any signal to CO2 driving temperatures notwithstanding the use of our best measuring devices. Any signal does not stick its head above the noise of natural variation and error bounds of the equipment and methodology and practices employed.

I tried to post the following but it has been lost (may be it is in moderation but there is no reason why it should go there.

It is only because of the endless adjustments made to the temperature data sets (by which I include station drop outs, and the shift from rural to urban and indeed to airport stations) that some consider that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is more than modest.

I suspect that if we were to remeasure the best sited stations in the Northern hemisphere (thise that have remained truly rural with no land changeand no encroachment of UHI and those with the best practice and data record) with the same LIG thermometers as used in the 1930s/early 1940s and using the same method and practice (including TOBS at the individual stations in question) so that no adjustment is necessary to RAW data, we would find that the majority of the best sited stations in the Northern Hemisphere would show no warming from the highs of the 1930s/1940s notwithstanding that during this period about 95% of all human emissions of CO2 has taken place.

This suggests that Climate Sensitivity (if any at all) to CO2 is zero, or close thereto (whether because the effect is fully saturated by the time CO2 reaches 300 ppm, or otherwise).

Hopefully it will now get through since it is relative to your fine comment.

Also, since when is the word “denier” synonymous with “Holocaust denier”?

How much warming from a doubling of CO2 must one believe in to avoid being classified as a “denier” of the climate?

To be classified as “denier” you have to argue against known physics and mechanisms. Basing your arguments on the misunderstanding of those things is a good sign. On the other hand, a skeptic knows how things (are supposed to) work and is just skeptical about the consequences. After all, scientists aren’t yet able to say with 100% certainty what will happen. That little uncertainty is the skeptic niche. The deniosphere is where all the nutters who don’t have any interest in understanding how the mechanisms work – and yet have strong opinions about how things ought the be – live.

Wasn’t Lindzen the guy who said “Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’”?

Yes, and you obviously missed the key word in that quote: controls. You seem to live in a black-and-white, false dichotomy world – hence your tendencies to perpetually concoct straw man arguments. CO2 either controls the climate or doesn’t have anything to do with the climate at all. The alternative to CO2 controlling the climate is not that CO2 has nothing to do with climate; CO2 could play a role, but a very modest to insignificant role. That’s what Dr. Lindzen’s position is. Like Dr. Reinhart, Lindzen accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming. He just doesn’t agree with you that CO2 causes catastrophic warming.

New York Times: “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point ‘nutty.’ He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.“

How much warming from a doubling of CO2 must one believe in to avoid being classified as a “denier” of the climate?

To be classified as “denier” you have to argue against known physics and mechanisms.

Neither Dr. Reinhart or Dr. Lindzen “argue against” the greenhouse effect, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that humans contribute to warming and CO2 concentrations with their emissions, or that doubling CO2 will cause a temperature increase. And yet you called them “climate deniers” anyway. So obviously this isn’t the answer to my question…you’re trying to change the subject and evade.

I asked you for a specific threshold temperature change from doubled CO2 one must believe in to avoid being called a “climate denier.” Reinhart has climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 as 0.24 K; Lindzen has it at 0.7 K — and his 2011 paper citing this value was featured in IPCC AR5. Obviously you don’t think 0.24 K or 0.7 K are high enough; you believe the warming from doubled CO2 will be catastrophic…though I’m not sure how much warming you deem to be catastrophic.

As you know, the IPCC-endorsed modeled temperature change for a CO2 doubling from 285 to 570 ppm is 1.16 K. Is it your belief that the IPCC value of 1.16 K is too low too? If so, how much warming from doubled CO2 must one believe in to crossover from the denier camp to the non-denier camp? If 0.24 K or 0.7 K (and 1.16 K) are all too low, what value is not too low? What value is not “denier”? Stop evading and offer specifics.

You’re the one who used the phrase “climate denier” — and then wrongly applied it to scientists who accept the CO2-causes-greenhouse-warming basics. Now inform us what the “correct” temperature value is for doubled CO2. What do you believe?

“The deniosphere is where all the nutters who don’t have any interest in understanding how the mechanisms work – and yet have strong opinions about how things ought the be – live. Good enough for a definition?”

Not in the slightest. Calling people “nutters” is not an answer to the specific question: How much warming do you believe we’ll get from doubled CO2? What’s the threshold temperature one must believe in to avoid the “climate denier” label? How much sea level rise must one believe in to avoid being called a “denier”? Is 1 meter “denier”? How many species extinctions? Is a million too few? 2 million? Answer these questions, SebastianH. Stop evading.

“That little uncertainty is the skeptic niche.”
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that “little uncertainty” is in fact a huge body of science underpinned by hundreds of papers and a non-consensus among scientists. Repeating lies as you often do does not make facts. You’ll have to do much better in the future.

No, you are not sorry, Sebastian, and you know it. People using dumb ad hominems always do it on purpose but your method is even dumber. You sound just like dimwits who interrupt someone in mid-sentence by saying:

“I don’t want to interrupt but …”

And if that was not dumb enough, in subsequent post you defend the use of the word “denier” again. Don’t you see that it doesn’t do your case any good? You should at least pretend that you are making an honest argument.

Can you explain why so many global warming alarmists argue like you do?

Can you explain why so many global warming alarmists argue like you do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_callingName calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.

I was surprised that Dr. Reinhart published a paper at EIKE in 2016 (his Reference 14). The link results in Error 503, I hope EIKE will repair their server.

I am stunned by scientific capabilities of our friend Sebastian H. Not only he worked through the math really fast, but he also noted that the paper is of similar style as a paper about data adjustments. What a genius.

The last 1000 years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
The last 10,000 years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.
The last 1 million years of temperature and CO2 levels show no correlation.

Why does anyone think that this time it must be different.

Historical record alone say the CO2 levels and global temperature are NOT correlated.

The inflection points in the CO2 Temperature ice core reconstructions should be all anyone ever needs to see to know CO2 cannot be the main temperature driver.

Temperature drops first – CO2 continues to rise for a period before following temperature down. Then temperature turns up again while CO2 continues down for a period before turning and following temperature up.

If CO2 was a main driver then this could never happen particularly at the top of the temperature curve – simple end of discussion.

climate sensitivity is a made up value to try and fit CO2 to temperature data in their models to come up with a catastrophic outcome. No wonder it keeps coming down in value as actual temps are not following the script.

I am reminded of the big bang episode with Sheldon rock climbing and his comment that he is a tangent approaching an asymptote before he falls of the climbing wall.

This ultimately will be the climate sensitivity’s constants fate in the face of much larger drivers on climate.

Back in the day when climate alarmists were banging on about global cooling and the threat of a new mini ice age, and at a period when the Northern Hemisphere had cooled by about 0.5degc from the highs of the 1940s, Climate Alarmists were proclaiming that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 was low.

It is only after the cooling stopped and there was a short warming period (say early 1970s to late 1990s) that Climate Alarmists started arguing that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 was high, even thoush that short warming period was no different to the warming seen between 1920 to 1940, or 1860 to 1880 as Phil Jones 9the alarmist from CRU) admitted, and even though the proxy record 9for what it is worth) shows no correlation between temperature and CO2, with CO2 lagging, not driving temperatures.

Perhaps Sebastian, and other of his ilk, should read the NASA/GISS paper written by the well known Climate Alarmist Schneider et al in 1971 published in Science volume 173.

This paper reports on the results/conclusions of their study:

It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2degK. (my emphasis)

The paper sets out their mathematical calculations all based upon the basic physiscs which is said to underpin AGW. So Schneider of GISS held very similar views to the Swiss physicist and to Lintzen.

GISS, back in the 1970s, held the view that CO2 has a role, but a very modest one, such that an 8 fold increase leads to less than 2 degC of warming.

It is only because of the endless adjustments made to the temperature data sets (by which I include station drop outs, and the shift from rural to urban and indeed to airport stations) that some consider that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is more than modest.

I suspect that if we were to remeasure the best sited stations in the Northern hemisphere (thise that have remained truly rural with no land changeand no encroachment of UHI and those with the best practice and data record) with the same LIG thermometers as used in the 1930s/early 1940s and using the same method and practice (including TOBS at the individual stations in question) so that no adjustment is necessary to RAW data, we would find that the majority of the best sited stations in the Northern Hemisphere would show no warming from the highs of the 1930s/1940s notwithstanding that during this period about 95% of all human emissions of CO2 has taken place.

This suggests that Climate Sensitivity (if any at all) to CO2 is zero, or close thereto (whether because the effect is fully saturated by the time CO2 reaches 300 ppm, or otherwise).

Endless adjustments made to the temperature data sets, from a reducing number of climate stations over the years, with many of them now suffering UHI effects, mix in homogenization of temperatures across regions and add the dodgy infilling data over vast areas of the world.

And they have the temerity to say there’s proof that temperatures are rising. BS!

actually the Inter-glacial period is already ending, since it has been cooling for a few thousand years now,this link below shows a number of charts and evidence that the transfer from inter-glacial period into Glaciation is well underway.

The Holocene context for Anthropogenic Global warming

“Summary

Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

Well that might excite the old arguments as to what is the correct global temperature?
My answer has always been that the correct global temperature is were its at right now.
BTW Exactly the same answer applies for CO2 — whatever the current level is is where it should be, nature overall is choc-full of negative feedback processes to insure that it can not rise too much.

“The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.”

This should be obvious to everyone !

The “back radiative greenhouse effect” is described using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in all of the simple models describing it including Richard Lindzen’s description.

I firmly believe that such application of a “law” empirically derived from experiments involving the emission of continuous spectra to substances which we all should know never emit continuous spectra is scientifically wrong !

All of the models invoke a “layer” of the atmosphere emitting sigmaT(atmos)^4.

To my mind this is absurd – gases emit line spectra and hence the SB equation does not hold – it is derived from continuous spectra as later theoretically described by Planck’s law.

Even Planck himself warned that objects sustaining convection currents should not be treated as blackbodies – Planck M. The theory of heat radiation. P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1914.

The only thing “settled” about climate science is that it is junk !

This should be obvious from the claim that the “atmospheric back radiation” has EQUAL heating power to the solar radiation – a claim that should be met with derision !

Climate science is nonsense – they do not understand even basic physics !

“This should be obvious from the claim that the “atmospheric back radiation” has EQUAL heating power to the solar radiation – a claim that should be met with derision !”

Just try a quick back of the envelope calculation —

Take a body of warmish (+10°C) ‘dry’ air over an ocean, say it picks up a 10,000 tons of water. How much energy does that take?

Now consider,(and here’s that never to be spoken about) advection, or horizontal winds, just moves that 10,000 tons of buoyant water as clouds at say 10 km/hr for 8 hrs. How much energy does that take?

Guess what nature does party tricks like that every day, some days the wind may blow a few million tons of dust off the desert, or whip up a storm at sea with wave 50meters high. No energy is used in these processes, well none that the models, modelers, or climate theoreticians can see.

I have made this same point before. Resorting to the device of ad hominem attack by the climate alarmists tells us all we need to know about their mental state.
They realize that their arguments, when closely examined, are so flimsy that they must resort to name calling to distract public attention away from the fact. Ad hominem is one among many of the logical fallacies earlier defined by Greek writers during the First Millennium BC.
HL

I am excited about the conclusion but wonder how it was reached especially in light of Gunnar Myhre’s work which implies 2X CO2 = 1.1C of warming. That’s about 5x the warming that Reinhart suggests, but I can’t believe that Myhre is wrong. So what’s the explanation for this discrepancy?

The following seems to be the key reason why Reinhart is about 1/5 the forcing of Myhre (.24 vs 1.1C). I don’t know what he means by “calculated heat retention.” Presumably he means that while the radiative forcing may be what Myhre suggests, that only 1/5th of it “is retained.” There’s something in his paper that says most of the radiative forcing energy goes to heat the atmosphere (as opposed to heating up the surface). Maybe that’s a clue, Maybe it’s a clue because air doesn’t retain heat very well , I dunno, Here’s the key passage (from the abstract):
[quote]
Over 200’000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in
these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K.
[end quote]

Can anyone explain how both Myhre and Reinhart can be right or are we stuck with having to choose one over the other. And if we have to choose, I'd say it's too early to choose Reinhart until we hear/see the response by the scientific community.

I suppose another troubling issue is that the various radiative forcing formulae seem to closely explain the warming since 1880 or so, despite a lot of interim variation. For example, the 1.83 W/M2 of CO2 forcing would explain about .55C of the .85-1C of warming, which seems plausible given there are other GHGs and some negative feedbacks.

Both climate sensitivity estimates are theoretical projections of what is thought might possibly happen to planetary temperatures 100 to several hundred years from now. Saying one is “right” and the other is “wrong” is not consistent with this framework.

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. — IPCC TAR (2001) Section 14.2.2.2 Page 774

“Can anyone explain how both Myhre and Reinhart can be right or are we stuck with having to choose one over the other.”

Here are several dozen more low climate sensitivity estimates (ranging from 0.02 C to < 1.0 degree C) that would appear to indicate that we may need to choose between more than just two calculations.

Thanks for a polite reply but I don’t agree. The forcing of CO2 is virtually immediate (we’re talking transient not equilibrium). There’s not delay in the first order effects and that’s what Myhre’s (and Reinhart’s) formulas are about. The feedbacks are completely separate and apart from the direct forcing.

Furthermore, it is not correct to characterize these effects as theoretical. There’s a certain approximation effect because the earth is not a perfect black body, but that’s not a distinction between Myhre and Reinhart. Furthermore, it’s pretty ridiculous to characterize a line of reasoning from first principals as “theoretical.” It’s the theoretical value we want, because there are many feedbacks and other factors that make measurement of the actual CO2 component practically impossible.

The fact that the atmosphere is chaotic therefore is also irrelevant and indeed the reason why ONLY a theoretical analysis is relevant. So the question “Why are Reinhart and Myhre so far apart?” remains a troubling mystery. It can’t be that they are bought “just theoretical.”

Finally while there may be more that 2 “low sensitivity” papers, how many of them are based on “first principals”, rather than an empirical consideration of what has ACTUALLY happened temp-wise in a give place (which seems to be the gist of many of those NTZ papers you link to), which is interesting but tells us nothing about climate sensitivity?

PS, you didn’t comment on my guess that it has to do, NOT with forcing itself but rather thermal occupation rates.

This is because this is indeed an entirely a theoretical exercise to guess what the temperature will be upon reaching 560 ppm. There are no physical measurements from controlled experiments with direct observation that show that CO2 heats water (the ocean)…and CO2 must change the temperature of the ocean for the temperature of the atmosphere to change due to the heat capacity differences. If you think there are actual (and not theoretical) observational measurements from controlled experiments that show what effect there is on water temperatures from a + or – 10 ppm (0.00001) change in CO2 concentration, I invite you to produce such physical evidence.

If CO2 was lowered by -0.00001 over a body of water, by how much would the temperature of that water change? Do you know? Of course not. Because CO2-heats-water is a theoretical conceptualization…just as all climate sensitivity estimates are.

“Finally while there may be more that 2 “low sensitivity” papers, how many of them are based on “first principals”, rather than an empirical consideration of what has ACTUALLY happened temp-wise in a give place (which seems to be the gist of many of those NTZ papers you link to), which is interesting but tells us nothing about climate sensitivity?”

The 1.2K estimate for TCS is not based on empirical consideration. Again, we have no physical measurements or empirical observations that show how much (if at all) water temperatures change upon raising or lowering CO2 concentrations. And the atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do (Ellsaesser, 1984). So until we have measurements from an actual controlled experiment, all of our estimates are going to be theoretical.

With respect, I’m somewhat disappointed in your answer. A large component of what you say is that CO2 back-radiation cannot warm seawater, which is beside the point I raised. I happen to agree with your point, sort of: CO2 15 micron back-radiation for sure cannot penetrate the 1mm cool ocean skin. However the fact that a certain amount of ocean cooling is from conduction, which is in turn an artifact of the air over the ocean being 1-2C cooler than the ocean surface …. suggests that a warmer atmosphere CAN warm the ocean by REDUCING conductive cooling. However, there is no peer-reviewed research on this that I can find. No matter, because this issue of ocean warming is a red-herring regarding my question/puzzle — namely why the big difference between Myhre and Reinhart ON THE DIRECT warming impact of 2X Co2 on THE ATMOSPHERE.

It is MY POINT that there is no direct way to measure the CO2 forcing effect and therefore all scientific answers will have to rely on scientific [first] principals rather than measurement.

Returning to my point: Obviously BOTH Myhre and Reinhart are making a theoretical claim. They both can’t be right. There is no theoretical “uncertainty” that allows for a 500% spread between 1.1C for Myhre and <.24C for Reinhart.

In brief your response seems like you're saying "hey there are a lot of opinions, take your pick." But that's not satisfying. Moreover it's almost flippant, so it's unsatisfactory as well.

I cannot believe either scientist made a simple mathematical mistake. Nor can I believe that Myhre came up with his values utilizing fewer than the 200,000 spectral lines that Reinhart used (for the simple reason he would have come in lower than Reinhart rather than almost 5x higher). As I understand Reinhart's paper he used all the spectral lines for CO2 covering all 3 of the CO2 resonant bandwidths.

I repeat: it seems Reinhart is making a point outside mere CO2 forcing alone, and the clue to this "something else" in in his talk about "thermal retention," which I can't follow.

“However the fact that a certain amount of ocean cooling is from conduction, which is in turn an artifact of the air over the ocean being 1-2C cooler than the ocean surface …. suggests that a warmer atmosphere CAN warm the ocean by REDUCING conductive cooling.”

Let’s say that a warmer atmosphere can warm the ocean by reducing conductive cooling. This begs the question: By how much? What are the physical measurements from a real-world scientific experiment? Of course, you don’t have any. So why do you believe that there is a quantifiable ocean heating difference from CO2 concentration changes if you don’t have any quantified measurements from a real-world experiment affirming what these values are?

If CO2 changes contribute to a net ocean heat change by 0.0001 K at most, is that significant enough to say that CO2 concentration changes exert a controlling influence on ocean temperatures? How about 0.01 K? Is that enough? Why don’t you have a problem not having specified measurements from real-world experiments? Aren’t physical measurements the essence of science?

However, there is no peer-reviewed research on this that I can find. No matter

Why is it a “no matter” issue that we don’t have scientific evidence or physical measurements quantifying how much CO2 warms the oceans (where 93% of the net heat changes in the Earth system reside) if your stated purpose here was to ask about the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 variations? Isn’t the quantification of the warming of the oceans from CO2 doubling the essence of the point here? The oceans are where the heat energy resides. The atmosphere is home to just 1% of the Earth system’s heat energy. The atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do. So why are the oceans a “no matter” issue to climate sensitivity? Why does it not matter that we have no peer-reviewed scientific research supporting your position?

why the big difference between Myhre and Reinhart ON THE DIRECT warming impact of 2X Co2 on THE ATMOSPHERE?

Again, David, the atmosphere is warmed or cooled by the oceans, not the other way around. The heat flux almost always goes from ocean to atmosphere…

Murray et al., 2000“…net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”

Ellsaesser, 1984
“The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the ‘explanation’ as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do. The logical implication follows that most current climate models are lacking in relevance; they have not been constructed with ocean surface temperature as the fundamental variable.”

So for you to claim that you are looking for the DIRECT warming of the ATMOSPHERE from 2 X CO2, you have it sequentially backwards. The atmosphere is not directly warmed by CO2. To warm the atmosphere, CO2 must warm the oceans first, as the heat flux is ocean-to-atmosphere. This is what I keep on trying to point out to you (obviously to no avail). The heating of the ocean is neither a “red herring” or a “no matter”. It is the crux of the issue.

Do you agree that not having any quantifying physical measurements from a controlled experiment that specify how much the oceans warm from parts per million (0.000001) changes in atmospheric CO2 is a rather significant problem? Or do you not need measurements to retain your certainty?

The atmosphere is not directly warmed by CO2. To warm the atmosphere, CO2 must warm the oceans first, as the heat flux is ocean-to-atmosphere.

Do you really believe a long wave radiation absorbing gas causes no warming of the surrounding gases when said radiation is absorbed? Do you honestly believe the surface warms the atmosphere just by conduction? Do you honestly believe the radiation from the surface is just passing through on its way to space? This sure reads like you do …

Also, the heat flux has a direction, but you don’t seem to understand that the amount of heat exchanged matters too. If the surface received 100 units of energy and the heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere manages to only get rid of 99 units of energy, the heat content of the surface increases.

I pointed these simple things out to you many times. You are basing your chain of arguments on misunderstood mechanisms and wrong assumptions.

David just wants you to answer a simple question and you try to distract by throwing in multiple questions you like him to answer first. That has been your strategy since I know you and all it does is showing us that you fail to understand even basic things and most of your knowledge is coming from cherry-picked quotes from papers that usually don’t really say what you think they do.

He wants to know why some models have doubling CO2 causing 1.16 K of warming (of the atmosphere), and others have doubling CO2 causing 0.25 K of warming (atmosphere). As I have pointed out several times, there are more than just 2 choices.

This one has doubling CO2 leading to 0.02 K of warming…

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412008001232“A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2.”

This one has it at 0.5 K…

Ollila, 2012 (2X CO2 = 0.51 °C)http://eae.sagepub.com/content/23/5/781.shortScientists are still debating the reasons for “global warming”. The author questions the validity of the calculations for the models published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and especially the future scenarios. Through spectral calculations, the author finds that water vapour accounts for approximately 87% of the greenhouse (GH) effect and only 10% of CO2. A doubling of the present level of CO2 would increase the global temperature by only 0.51 °C without water feedback.

This one has it at 0.3 K…

Schuurmans, 1983 (2XCO2 = ~0.3°C )http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-6998-8_12#page-1For detection purposes we need to know the so-called transient response of climate to a given increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (observed or predicted). Transient response patterns, however, are generally much less well known than equilibrium responses. The problems encountered in specifying the transient CO2-induced climate signal are discussed in detail by Michael et al. in his book. From his review we may conclude that there is some general agreement amongst different modellers that the transient response of global mean temperature to increased CO2 concentration of the atmosphere at present amounts to less than 0.5 K(estimates of [temperature response] now varying between 0.2 and 0.4 K).

Which hypothetical model is right? We don’t know. After all, they’re models. They’re not based on real-world observation. They’re hypothetical conceptualizations.

Of course, I have a problem with not having real-world observation, scientific experiment, and physical measurements. Without them, I am skeptical. You obviously have no problem with accepting modeled results (as long as they collaborate with your presuppositions, of course). That’s the difference between people like you and people like us.

“Do you really believe a long wave radiation absorbing gas causes no warming of the surrounding gases when said radiation is absorbed? “

”

WOW, that’s a change of tack..

You used to say it was all radiation, now you recognise4 the first step.. thermalisation to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere… EXACTLY as I have been telling you since you started your trolling here.

Perhaps you are capable of basic learning. !!

Heck , next you’ll be talking about the gravity based thermal gradient or something 😉

——-

Do you REALLY believe that convection doesn’t immediately counteract this warming?

AGW sceptics come in two main camps – those like Lindzen, Spencer, etc. who appear to accept the main tenets of global warming, but argue over the degree of climate sensitivity to CO2 changes, and the more radical type – who can often be found in the comments’ sections of popular sites – who dispute the physics itself.

It’s noticeable that these two groupings rarely engage with each other. A pity because I think these exchanges would be more enlightening than the usual back and forth brtween ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’.

While CO2 has 3 absorption peak frequencies it’s the one around 15 micron bandwidth that is the focus of GHE for CO2. IR at say 23 microns isn’t captured by CO2 and thus CO2 has no GHE for that bandwidth (other GHGs do). Furthermore the CO2 molecule emits at the same frequency it captures. This is true in still air (no convection) or moving air (no convection).

So I don’t follow your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph doesn’t tell me anything one way or the other.

Your third paragraph is presumably your main point and I can’t see it. What CO2 does to create GHE is to absorb and re-radiate IR say between 14-16 microns. Each molecule of CO2 is indifferent to convection.

The oceans are warmer than the air above them therefore the oceans shed heat via convection. The amount of heat shed by convection is proportional to the spread between the ocean surface temperature and the air temperature above the ocean. If more atmospheric CO2 warms the air the per force this temperature gap narrows and thus conductive cooling of the ocean increases. What’s bizarre about that. I asserted that I’ve seen no actual measurement of this phenomenon, but it’s seem obvious based on how conduction works.

“If more atmospheric CO2 warms the air the per force this temperature gap narrows and thus conductive cooling of the ocean increases. What’s bizarre about that. I asserted that I’ve seen no actual measurement of this phenomenon“

If you’ve never seen an actual measurement of this phenomenon, but yet you believe it occurs anyway, how is that scientific? And if you don’t know what the measurements are, how can you establish that the ocean heating/cooling results associated with CO2 concentration increases or decreases above oceans are significant and not negligible? Don’t you think we probably need more than hypothetical explanations of the way we think it might possibly work to affirm this explanation’s authenticity? Why are you OK with educated guesses with no actual measurements for such a fundamental facet of climate science?

“If more atmospheric CO2 warms the air”

The atmosphere doesn’t warm until the oceans do. It (almost always) must follow this sequence. Therefore, the condition that atmospheric CO2 must warm the air to warm the ocean has the chronology backwards.

—
Minnett et al., 2011http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect
“The surface skin layer of the ocean, much less than 1 mm thick, is nearly always cooler than the underlying water because the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere”
—
Murray et al., 2000http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”
—
Ellsaesser, 1984http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do. The logical implication follows that most current climate models are lacking in relevance; they have not been constructed with ocean surface temperature as the fundamental variable. When the problem is attacked from this view, sensitivity to CO2 is significantly reduced; a position also strongly supported by the available palaeoclimatic data.

A paper isn’t necessary. Increased atmospheric CO2 warms the air. The ocean is warmer than the air and has massive heat stability (it’s a heat sink in other words). So when the air warms, the oceans…. not so much. However, “not so much” doesn’t mean “not at all.” The oceans are warmed as a by-product of atmospheric CO2-induces warming by the reduction of ocean conductive cooling.

Convective atmosphere is no more relevant to this than the color of the sky.

Since 93% of the heat energy in the climate system is found in the oceans, and just 1% resides in the air (IPCC), to be significantly responsible for climate changes (warming the air), CO2 must heat the oceans. And you’ve acknowledged that we have no measurements that affirm CO2 does this. And yes, scientific verification is necessary establishing that CO2 heats and cools the oceans when increased or decreased in the air above it.

However, “not so much” doesn’t mean “not at all.”

How much is “not so much”? Can you quantify it? If not, how do you know whether it’s significant enough to make a salient difference? Don’t you think we probably need these data and these observations and measurements to be able to scientifically establish the climate effects of varying CO2? If not, why not? Why aren’t measurements necessary?

Considering the atmosphere doesn’t warm unless the oceans do, and that 93% of any net heat change in the climate system is found in the oceans, don’t you think that it’s a problem for the paradigm that “CO2 cannot warm the ocean”?

The question is “Does CO2 IR warm the oceans?” and the answer is “No, because CO2 IR cannot penetrate the ocean skin.” However, CO2 can warm the air and in so doing it reduces the ocean/air temperature difference and thereby reduced ocean conductive cooling. This amount to “some [indirect] warming.”

However, CO2 can warm the air and in so doing it reduces the ocean/air temperature difference and thereby reduced ocean conductive cooling.

As I just wrote above (with supporting evidence from scientific papers), because of the heat capacity differences (it takes something like 1,100 times more heat energy to warm the oceans than it does to warm the air above the oceans), the ocean must be warmed before the atmosphere can be warmed (generally speaking). Therefore, saying the CO2 heats the air and then the air/skin difference is what heats or cools the ocean depths has it backwards.

Besides, solar radiation heating penetrates by 10s of meters into the ocean. CO2 does not. Therefore, even a minor change in the amount of absorbed radiation (due to, for example, variations in clouds or aerosols) is far more responsible for any changes in ocean temperature than the 1/100ths of 1% change in CO2 concentrations since 1900.

This amount to “some [indirect] warming.”

How much is “some”? We don’t know. It hasn’t been measured. It’s hypothetical and based on what we think might possibly be true. How can we establish that this is scientific if we don’t have observational evidence and we don’t have physical measurements that quantify what this “some” is?

I have read the paper and the author talks of line spectra. He goes into detail as to the isotopic effects. I understand the origin of all of these lines, These are from changes in vibrational levels in the molecules. They are complicated by simultaneous transitions in the rotational energy levels thus giving a forrest of individual peaks. These vib-rotational lines are relatively high in energy and do not have much coincidence with black body radiation at 288K. What does have coincidence with black body radiation is the so-called continuous radiation absorption by CO2 at low infra red energy. These do not seem to correspond with vibrational bands. Did Reinhart account for this radiation? He does not seem to have said so in his paper.

Could someone enlighten me of the origin of this continuous spectrum, is it vibrational -colissional? And so in effect it really is a continuous spectrum and not a discrete line spectrum.

This is a reply to Kenneth Richard’s July post to me (I don’t seem to be able to reply directly in line, for some reason).

With respect, I can only interpret your position is CO2 has no impact on the atmospheric temperature. This is so for the very simple reason that CO2 can’t warm the oceans (according to you, either directly or indirectly) and that [only, or virtually only]the oceans warm the air, not vice versa (again according to you). Therefore the correct value for climate sensitivity to CO2 is …. zero [or virtually zero]. This leaves with only the sun, mitigated by atmospheric conditions is completely responsible for global temperatures (and you can throw in convection if you like).

Both Myhre and Reinhart and indeed every other scientist who has ventured into the climate sensitivity arena has completely missed the boat (again: according to you).

“With respect, I can only interpret your position is CO2 has no impact on the atmospheric temperature.”

Instead of trying to interpret my position (which is not that CO2 has no impact by the way), why not address points I have been making about the heat energy in the Earth’s climate system predominantly (93%) residing in the oceans, and thus if we are considering climate sensitivity to CO2, the temperature of the oceans are the single greatest parameter that must be considered, not the atmospheric temperature? Do you agree with this, or do you continue to think that the oceans are “no matter” to climate sensitivity estimates? If so, why?

“CO2 can’t warm the oceans (according to you, either directly or indirectly) and that [only, or virtually only]the oceans warm the air, not vice versa (again according to you).”

David, it would appear that you are here trying to marginalize what I have written, as if it’s only my opinion that we don’t have scientific measurements verifying the conceptualization that variations in atmospheric CO2 heat or cool water when increased or decreased. Do you believe we do have physical measurements from controlled experiments showing how much water is warmed or cooled by changing CO2 concentrations? I recall you have at least somewhat admitted that we don’t have said measurements or observational evidence. So why are you here trying to make it appear that it’s only “according to [me]” that we don’t have scientific evidence affirming what you believe is true? Why is not having observational evidence or physical measurements a problem for you? Why do you wish to proceed as if the lack of affirming scientific evidence of this phenomenon is immaterial and “no matter”…and thus we should get on with pontificating about heat changes in the atmosphere instead of the water, and which of the many modeling studies about air temperature changes are correct?

This is a reply to Andy55 in his July 28th post to me. There are many things we haven’t measured that we know scientifically. The principals of conductive heat transfer are well established. WE know from these principals that heat flows via conduction from a warmer to a cooler object that it is in contact with at a rate proportional to (inter alia) the temperature difference between the objects. We also know that the oceans are typically 1-2C warmer than the air above them. We have estimates of the amount of conductive heat transfer to the air. I accept that CO2 cannot warm the oceans, except possibly indirectly via reduced conductive cooling. How do I justify the word “possibly” here? Well we know from GHG theory that additional GHG concentrations increase IR back radiation to the earth thereby increasing the amount of heat the earth must shed for the global energy budget to remain in balance. We also know that given steady insolation and albedo and ignoring heat sinks, that the earth must radiate at 255K.

Now if convection was the mechanism for all this extra global shedding of heat, we wouldn’t have any atmospheric temperature rise to speak of, but we do — about 1C over 140 years or so. And of course if convection were the mechanism of heat removal of this extra heat, we would be see it in say increased rainfall. To my knowledge we do not.

In brief, your position seems unsupported by any evidence (e.g., of greater global rainfall over past 140 years). It seems to deny or ignore the radiative forcing of GHGs which is robustly supported theoretically although quite difficult to pin down in detail.

I’ve always felt Myhre’s formula was consistent with the facts. The increase of about 1.83W/M2 in CO2 forcing since 1715 (Myhre, 2013) produces about .55C of warming which is consistent with the actual temperature record, given there are other GHGs also warming the earth.

To my knowledge there’s no science that explains this 1C of warming that is based completely on …. well, what’s left other than insolation, presumably surface insolation? That would mean most likely that all global temperature variation is due to …. well, the amount of cloud cover. It’s an interesting theory, but needs some evidence. We don’t have any evidence of cloud cover globally prior to satellites.

Well we know from GHG theory that additional GHG concentrations increase IR back radiation to the earth thereby increasing the amount of heat the earth must shed for the global energy budget to remain in balance.

ROFLMAO

Baseless suppository.

There is NO increase in the amount of heat. that is a child-minded fallacy of the AGW scam.

Increased heat can only come from a heat source.. or do you “believe” that CO2 is now a heat source?

That’s not true. Heat content is not just the result of a source of heat, it is also the result of how effectively something can get rid of that heat/energy.

@David: AndyG55 thinks that gravity and atmospheric density is causing the observed surface temperatures of rocky planets with atmospheres. So apparently the density of Earth’s atmosphere must have increased in the last 100 years (according to him). He doesn’t think the greenhouse effect based on radiative gases exists.

“That’s not true. Heat content is not just the result of a source of heat, it is also the result of how effectively something can get rid of that heat/energy.”

Heat content is mostly determined by variations in source absorption. The “how effectively something can get rid of that heat/energy” is a far less significant determinant. They are not equally influential.

And even in the latter case involving CO2 and the ocean, CO2 is far less of a determinant of “how effectively something can get rid of that heat/energy” than, say, variations in cloud cover.

That’s also not true. If a something absorbs 1 additional unit of energy without being able to get rid of it (by emission, conduction, etc) immediately, then the heat content increases by 1 unit. If something in the environment changes so the something can’t get rid of as many units of energy as before (a change of 1 unit), it has exactly the same effect.

@AndyG55:

Experimentally, it has been shown that CO2 is better at transferring energy than normal air is.

Incredible. So even variations in the amount or seasonal intensity of absorbed solar radiation are not mostly responsible for changes in ocean heat. Because…CO2, right?

That’s not what I wrote. Don’t make up things that aren’t there. This is strictly about what can cause a change of heat content and it is not true that variations on the incoming side determine heat content more than variations on the outgoing side. It depends on the size of those variations, not where they occur …

It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation … If established, this fact can only lead to the conclusion that a Radiative flux imbalance at the TOA caused by increasing GHGs will likely be restored to balance more quickly than a similar sized flux imbalance caused by changes in solar radiation. It follows that climate sensitivity to changes in GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than for similar changes in solar forcing

“Ehm, everything you put insulation on gets warmer without an extra heat source or needs less energy to maintain its temperature.”

Can you explain why you believe that CO2 molecules that are today spaced together just 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 (353 ppm) function physically quite similarly to a block of insulation ensconced in the walls of a house?

Can you explain why you believe that CO2 molecules that are today spaced together just 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 (353 ppm) function physically quite similarly to a block of insulation ensconced in the walls of a house?

“Yes I can.”

Then do so. How are CO2 molecules spaced apart by parts per million (0.000001) physiologically similar to the molecules making up tangible, solid, and dense house insulation?

“Can you explain why they wouldn’t?”

Because CO2 molecules spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 do not function anything like the physical properties of house insulation.

ALSO – All we know about CO2 and temperature is that they are either negatively correlated for small scale [CO2] change over short time scales, or not at all for large scale [CO2] change over long time scales (see section 2 here)http://www.stallinga.org/Climate/GreenhouseGases.html

Then, about cloud cover, for which we DO have evidence of their influence on temperatures, it scribbles…

It’s funny how you think there is no data for one thing but you strongly believe in a theory that cosmic rays influence climate by influencing the cloud cover which has already been debunked (no evidence).

“And let’s not forget that Feldman started at the base of an La Nina, and finished at the top of an El Nino.”

And let’s also not forget that the Feldman paper doesn’t consider changes in ocean heat content as a factor for their radiative forcing values. It’s changes in surface air temperature that’s considered.

“you strongly believe in a theory that cosmic rays influence climate by influencing the cloud cover”

Do you believe cloud cover (cloud radiative forcing) does not influence the climate?

The cosmic ray theory is concerning what factors cause decadal-scale cloud cover variations. The conclusion that decadal-scale cloud cover variations strongly influence the climate/ocean heat content has not been “debunked”.

For example, a just-published paper indicates that radiative forcing for cloud cover was +4-11 W m-2 for the 2000-2010 period at 36 locations across the globe. That’s quite a bit larger than the alleged forcing from CO2 over the same period (0.2 W m-2, Feldman et al., 2015).

Hukuba et al., 2017http://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4975543At 36 locations worldwide, we estimate the cloud radiative effect (CREatm) on atmospheric solar absorption (ASRatm) by combining ground-based measurements of surface solar radiation (SSR) with collocated satellite-derived surface albedo and top-of-atmosphere net irradiance under both all-sky and clear-sky conditions. To derive continuous clear-sky SSR from Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) in-situ measurements of global and diffuse SSR, we make use of the Long and Ackerman (2000) algorithm that identifies clear-sky measurements and empirically fits diurnal clear-sky irradiance functions using the cosine of the solar zenith angle as the independent variable. The 11-year average (2000-2010) CREatm (all-sky minus clear-sky) is overall positive at around +11 Wm-2 using direct measurements form ground and space, and at 4 Wm−2 in the CERES EBAF dataset.

“Kenneth, as a small exercise: please calculate the resulting temperature change for a forcing of 4 or 11 W/m² over 11 years”

It would be several degrees of warming. That’s how influential cloud cover variations are in their shortwave forcing contribution at these 36 locations. CO2 concentrations, on the other hand, are alleged to only lead to 0.2 W m-2 of forcing over an 11-year period (Feldman et al., 2015). This is consistent with the observation that when it comes influencing the radiation budget, cloud cover changes completely overwhelm alleged forcing values for CO2.

By the way, global temperatures didn’t cooperate with the forcing value for CO2 (0.2 W m-2) either between 2000 and 2010…

Their whole intent is to just keep yapping mindlessly, trying to distract and avoid the FACT that there is no empirical proof that CO2 causes warming of oceans or of a convectively controlled atmosphere.

“There are many things we haven’t measured that we know scientifically.”

So since we don’t have quantified observational evidence that tells us how much or how little warming occurs in a body of water when CO2 is varied in quantities of parts per million above it (it could be + or – 0.00001 K, it could be + or – 0.01 K, it could be + or – 0.000000008 K, even + or – 1.16 K…who knows?), this lack of real-world physical measurements doesn’t matter. We scientifically know it’s true anyway that increasing CO2 concentrations causes the oceans to warm by preventing cooling…despite not having any real world physical measurements of this phenomenon. We should just believe…because we know. And we know because…well, we just do. Do you have any idea how unscientific this is, David? Have you ever considered that our lack of real world physical measurements are a problem when it comes to scientific inquiry?

Kenneth, for the 10000th time:
1) we know how different backradiation levels affect the ocean heat content/temperature (by experiment)
2) we know that varying CO2 concentration result in different backradiation levels or forcings (by experiment)

It’s not as far fetched, as you like to portrait it, to assume that the ocean heat content “reacts” to changing CO2 concentration. Of course, there could be some unknown magic at work that somehow lets the energy disappear untraceable, but that’s highly unlikely and very unscientific as you like to call it.

1) we know how different backradiation levels affect the ocean heat content/temperature (by experiment)
2) we know that varying CO2 concentration result in different backradiation levels or forcings (by experiment)

I have concluded that neither Kenneth Richard nor Andy55 know climate science. Andy seems to believe that CO2 is not a GHG basically as a matter of principal, which is patently absurd. Kenneth has the plus of at least being polite. But despite his disclaimers he is stuck with CO2 is not a GHG either as I have shown (a. oceans warm the air, not the other way around; b) ‘no science showing CO2 warms oceans; therefore c) CO2 has no impact on global atmospheric temperature)

As a consequence for neither of them there is per force no such thing as climate sensitivity, as defined by “the atmospheric temp response to increased GHGs (sometimes limited to CO2, other times including other [human emitted] non condensing GHGs.”

Therefore F K Reinhart’s paper is a non-starter for them, barking up the wrong tree, or no tree at all. And that’s true for all the other papers on climate sensitivity — all bogus, all pseudo-science.

Indeed, I can’t see why either of them are the slightest bit interested in Reinhart’s paper (why post about it?).

Unfortunately I am interested in Reinhart’s paper because it seems to contradict the consensus CO2 forcing work of Gunnar Myhre (1998, 2013, 2016) which is universally accepted by the scientific community.

Wow. So after demonstrating that you have no response when asked to provide quantifiable real world evidence as to how much CO2 heats a body of water, you have done what most people in your position do: attempt to shame and marginalize those who are challenging you. So sad to see that you are not above resorting to this sophomoric tactic.

“Kenneth…despite his disclaimers he is stuck with CO2 is not a GHG either”

I have not written nor agreed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It is. The problem is, to be a controlling factor in determining net heat changes in the climate system, CO2 needs to be a primary player in warming the oceans. If it does warm the oceans by preventing cooling (and I will reiterate that I am willing to accept that it does if real world evidence can be provided), then the logical question is: By how much? And apparently asking you this question “crosses the line”, as you don’t wish to go there (probably because you don’t know the answer – there aren’t any measurements).

You want to get back to figuring out how much CO2 heats the atmosphere (how about the troposphere?) by discussing climate models of CO2 sensitivity…that do not use changes in ocean heat as the primary variable. Instead of addressing this fundamental problem, you have decided to call it a “no matter”…and then to marginalize me for even asking you to address it. Why do you think it isn’t important that we don’t know how much CO2 heats (or cools) the oceans when varied up or down? Trying to calculate how much CO2 will heat the air 100 years from now (CO2 doubling) without figuring out how much it heats the ocean in the real world now doesn’t seem to address the central issue you claim to concerned about: the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

David, in your attempts to marginalize and shame me, you have just concocted a false dichotomy by claiming I have written there is “no science showing CO2 warms oceans; therefore c) CO2 has no impact on global atmospheric temperature)”

You have yourself written that…

I accept that CO2 cannot warm the oceans

But does accepting that CO2 cannot warm the oceans (which even I don’t necessarily agree with) mean you believe that “CO2 has no impact on global atmospheric temperature”? Of course not. So why have you decided to make up a position that I have not written? Why make up straw man arguments in an attempt to shame me?

All I have done is asked you to provide quantifiable support for your claim that CO2 might “possibly” (your word choice) warm the oceans by preventing conductive cooling. By how much?, I have asked. Why is asking that cogent question tantamount to taking the position that CO2 is not a GHG, that CO2 has “no impact” on the climate, and thus I don’t “know climate science”?

(For the record, I don’t know how much CO2 warms the oceans, or if it does. That’s because we have no real world experiments or physical measurements to confirm this phenomenon occurs. So I necessarily remain agnostic on this issue. If someone can provide evidence – real-world physical measurements – that would be helpful. But until that occurs, I will remain skeptical. I won’t just ignore the issue, or call it a “no matter” to climate science, as you have done. I would prefer to embrace the uncertainty rather than abscond from it.)

“all the other papers on climate sensitivity — all bogus, all pseudo-science.”

I have not written that. Your attempts to type up conclusions that I haven’t posited are again rather sad. I had hoped you wouldn’t stoop to this. I didn’t compile 60 papers on low climate sensitivity because I thought they were “all bogus, all pseudo-science”.

“Indeed, I can’t see why either of them are the slightest bit interested in Reinhart’s paper (why post about it?).”

I wrote the article and summarized the key points from the paper because it provided yet another example of how physicists are questioning the conceptualization that the Earth is highly sensitive to CO2 variations. That’s it. Low sensitivity does not mean NO sensitivity. I would appreciate it if you would stop making up positions that I don’t have.

If you are truly interested in a rather lucid discussion of how models (yes, TCS is a modeled construct) arrived at the 1.16 K value for doubled CO2, here is as a good a summary as any:

Sometimes I wonder if you are really able to read and understand a written text.

You have claimed that the oceans warm the air (1), you also assume that CO2 doesn’t cause warming of the oceans (2). The consequence of (1) and (2) is that you think CO2 doesn’t cause warming of the air either. And yet you write something about climate sensitivity of CO2 … which is a contradiction.

Either the oceans don’t warm the air or CO2 does cause warming of the oceans.

You falsely think this is a straw man argument (one of your standard defenses, claiming that the other party made something up you said and distancing yourself from the claims by stating that you merely quote others and remain agnostic).

So this is now just my “claim”? Do you not think the oceans warm the air?

The Sun warms the oceans via direct solar radiation penetrating by 10s of meters into the ocean depths. The heat flux “almost always” goes from ocean to atmosphere, as only 1% of the heat in the climate system is “stored” in the air, whereas 93% of the Earth’s heat energy resides in the ocean.

“Either the oceans don’t warm the air or CO2 does cause warming of the oceans.”

So we are limited to two choices of your creation: (a) Accept that the oceans don’t warm the air, or (b) accept that CO2 does cause warming of the oceans. Do you have any other choices, or are these the only two we are allowed to choose from?

How about this… What if we accept that CO2 warms up the oceans…but then we ask for physical measurements from a real-world experiment that establishes how much CO2 warms up the oceans down to depths of 10s of meters. Could you provide that supporting evidence?

You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a monumental difference between saying that (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes some modest warming when increased and (b) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and causes no warming at all. Why must you repeatedly try to claim that anyone who finds climate sensitivity is very low and very insignificant is actually saying that climate sensitivity is zero and CO2 doesn't affect the climate at all? Why continue to set up these either/or false dichotomies?

Why must you repeatedly try to claim that anyone who finds climate sensitivity is very low and very insignificant is actually saying that climate sensitivity is zero and CO2 doesn’t affect the climate at all?

That’s not what is happening here, Kenneth.

One more time:
1) You say the oceans must warm for the air to warm (“A causes B”)
2) You say CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans (“C can’t cause A”)

Therefore CO2 doesn’t cause warming of the air (“C can’t cause B”).

That would be consistent. What is not consistent with this is when you write that CO2 climate sensitivity is above 0. Because then warming of the air must occur and the oceans must have warmed too and voila CO2 must cause ocean warming.

That’s what the OP meant with his comment and you not understanding this let us enter another endless loop of you misunderstanding things and me trying to use many words to explain it to you. You calling me dishonest, etc pp. I’ll end the loop right here 😉

No. I am open to the possibility that CO2 warms the oceans. I just haven’t anyone who believes that this occurs provide any observed evidence with physical measurements identifying how much warming occurs when CO2 concentrations are increased over the ocean (or water bodies in general). I do not make affirmative statements (or at least I deliberately avoid them) such as “CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans”. This is not language that I use. You have, once again, claimed I have written something that I have not. Therefore, your entire comment here is rooted in a false statement.

“What is not consistent with this is when you write that CO2 climate sensitivity is above 0.”

So you are telling me that I am not allowed to reference scientific papers with values of climate sensitivity above 0. Who are you to tell me what papers I can cite?

” Andy seems to believe that CO2 is not a GHG basically as a matter of principal,”

Thing is, I know guys that work with CO2 in lasers for a living. They laugh at the idea of calling CO2 anything but a “radiative gas”… and laugh at those pretending it has something akin the warming effect in a greenhouse.

Its a misnomer to call CO2 a GHG except in the case of it being used in a greenhouse to ENHANCE plant growth.

CO2 in the atmosphere does not function in any way like a greenhouse. Them’s just the FACTS.

The only substance in our atmosphere that has the power to majorly affect the natural atmospheric cooling rate set by gravity/pressure, is H2O.

What’s interesting is that nearly every consecutive real science (as opposed to AGW pseudo-science) get closer and closer to a sensitivity of ZERO. 🙂

And yes CO2 is a gas used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

It is also a gas that absorbs a thin spectrum of LW radiation, then passes it onto the rest of the atmosphere.
It actually aids in the transfer of energy from the surface to the mid atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere where there is less probability of collision, it absorbs then radiates to space, helping to cool the planet.

To Andy_55, your position is clear from what you say, to wit, “show me a single paper the proves CO2 warms the convective atmosphere” (paraphrase). So per force you don’t accept there is a GHE on earth. Your position is silly, but I don’t care to argue. However, it can be refuted with a simple observation, “If as you say there can be no [CO2 only?] effect in a convective atmosphere, then provide a single paper establishing that.” You can’t. But then your position is per force incoherent. Mayre’s 1998 paper formulating CO2 radiative forcing is the accepted science (with updates 2013, and 2016). Convection is not a factor in any of his work.

I repeat: If you don’t think there’s a CO2 GHE on earth, why are you commenting on a paper analyzing CO2 radiative forcing? It’s your position that either there’s no such thing or that it’s completely neutralized [presumably] by convection. In any event whichever you chose you are refuted by the fact that there’s no science (no measurement or peer-reviewed paper) supporting either alternative.

to Kenneth: We already know (it’s accepted climate science) that CO2 warms the atmosphere via radiative forcing following Myrhe’s F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co). For 2x CO2 that works out to 3.71W/M2 (ie, that’s what 5.35xLn(2) is). This has NOTHING to do with the oceans and for you to have brought this ocean angle up WITH ME is a red-herring. Said forcing would be the case with or with oceans.

This forcing works based on the basic thermodynamic principal that every object not at absolute 0 temp radiates IR. If a black body sphere with it’s own steady source of power (say the earth using the sun’s input net of reflection) radiates to outer space at absolute 0 temperature say 240 W/M2 of energy the sphere will have a temperature of 255K following Stefan-Boltzmann’s formula. If you put a perfectly absorbing heat shield around this object (and say it’s close enough that the area of the shield is not materially different from the area of the sphere), then the shield will heat up and also at some point radiate at 240W/M2 to outer space at 255K.

BUT (AND THIS IS THE KEY POINT) the sphere itself will no longer be at 255K, because the shield will be not only radiating IR to outer space (one direction) but also radiating IR back to the surface of the sphere (the opposite direction). The surface of the sphere will heat up and be warmer than 255K. That’s what’s going on with the GHE. It has nothing to do with convection, nothing to do with oceans vs ice vs land vs trees.

Now this is what Myhre has quantified for earth. It appears Reinhart has done the exact same thing on the face of it as Myhre, but come up with values that are slightly more than 1/5th of the values Myhre calculated. So Myhre’s values suggest a 1.1C warming per 2X CO2 vs Reinhart’s <.24C of warming for 2X CO2.

I can't believe either of these 2 made some simple mathematical error. If they are both making the same physics claim, they can't both be right.

I haven't read all the "radiative forcing" papers for CO2, but I do NOT believe other than Reinhart's paper that ANY OF THEM challenge Myhre's calculations. For example I aver that many (perhaps all) of the NoTrickZone papers alleging low climate sensitivity are doing so on an anecdotal basis having nothing to to with the physics of the matter. Another set may be including putative [negative] feedbacks to conclude low CO2 net warming.

Now it may be beyond your abilities (as it seems to be beyond my own abilities) to evaluate whether Reinhart and Myhre really are doing the same thing physics-wise and coming up with different values, and I'll be able to live with that.

But I consider Reinhart's paper to be revolutionary in its implications (if it's true, then AGW is a nothing-burger). So I really want to find out why Reinhart gets such a low value for CO2's effect on Earth temps.

David, this is a model. It’s a theory, a hypothesis. Calling it something we scientifically “know” is true is no more confirmed than our theories of the origins of the universe.

And you keep on writing about Myrhe‘s hypothetical model of climate sensitivity. It isn’t Myrhe’s hypothetical model of climate sensitivity. This particular hypothetical model (3.7 W m-2, 1.2 K warming with doubled CO2) dates back to at least the 1960s. For example…

Gebhart, 1967https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02319110
“It can be shown that shortwave and longwave influence of a higher CO2 concentration counteract each other. The temperature change at the earth’s surface is ΔT=+1.2°C when the present concentration [325 ppm] is doubled [750 ppm].”

“This has NOTHING to do with the oceans and for you to have brought this ocean angle up WITH ME is a red-herring.”

So it’s your position that climate sensitivity to CO2 “has NOTHING to do with the oceans” and temperature changes therein. Only the air temperature matters to climate sensitivity. To suggest otherwise is a “red herring”. That’s a rather odd position to take considering the IPCC has stated that 93% of the Earth’s net heat energy changes are in the oceans, and just 1% of changes in the Earth’s heat energy are in the air (3% land, 3% ice).

How do you justify your claim that CO2 climate sensitivity has “NOTHING to do with the oceans” when the oceans are where 93% of the Earth’s radiative heat energy changes occur? I keep on asking you to explain this, and you keep on responding by accusing me of tossing out a red herring.

If hypothetical model estimates of CO2 climate sensitivity do not include ocean heat content changes (93%), but only air temperature changes (1%), don’t you think this is a problem? If not, why not? It’s like trying to assess the natural attribution for climate changes while claiming the Sun has NOTHING to do with natural climate forcing.

“That’s what’s going on with the GHE. It has nothing to do with convection, nothing to do with oceans vs ice vs land vs trees.”

So your position is that the greenhouse effect “has nothing to do with” warming the oceans or melting land ice. Do you think this is “accepted climate science”?

“Now this is what Myhre has quantified for earth.”

To be consistent, this model is what Myhre (sic) has quantified for Earth — except for the oceans, land, and ice on the Earth. The oceans have nothing to do with models of climate sensitivity. Right?

“So Myhre’s values suggest a 1.1C warming per 2X CO2 vs Reinhart’s < .24C of warming for 2X CO2. I can't believe either of these 2 made some simple mathematical error. If they are both making the same physics claim, they can't both be right."

In another model of climate sensitivity, rooted in physics, CO2 climate sensitivity is 0.01–0.03 °C for a doubling of 2009 concentrations (~775 ppm). Are you excluding their model from consideration? If so, why?

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412008001232
A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2.

Now where’s your paper saying there’s no GHE in a convective atmosphere. Answer: there is none.

“Who am I to say you shouldn’t be commenting here?” Well, I’m the person who observes you don’t believe in climate sensitivity (any impact on temps from non-condensing GHGs) at all, you’re a person who’s position is incoherent (you have no paper of your own proving your thesis, or any data either), and who consequently doesn’t believe in climate science at all. Therefore your only purpose here is to make trouble.

CO2 can’t significantly warm the oceans by itself. That is a completely correct statement. But it’s forcing effect causes the oceans to warm (less cooling towards the atmosphere/space equals build up of heat content).

To Kenneth: F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) is no more a model than F=MA, or E=MC2. Unlike those however it’s heuristic formula (an estimate) good for a range of CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm. Myhre’s 2016 formula is a variation which is good up to 2000 ppm.

Work prior to Myhre was less accurate, equating 2X CO2 = 4W/M2 and 1.2C. And the TAR used Myhre, not the old values (why do you think, if it’ “just a model” — one of many?).

Nor is Myhre equating his work to climate sensitivity. It’s the direct radiative forcing effect of increased CO2, with no feedbacks considered. Sensitivity takes in feedback. And of course sometime climate sensitivity is limited to “from CO2” and other includes the other non-condensing GHGs.’

No climate scientist calls Myhre’s work theoretical or hypothetical…. it seems until now with Reinhart, who seems to be saying Myhre got it wrong…. by a huge amount. I intuit he’s not actually saying that and the clue to my intuition is his talk about thermal retention, which I don’t fathom (and apparently you don’t either).

Yes, transient climate sensitivity has nothing to do with the oceans. That is not to say that the ocean’s don’t affect the atmosphere, but climate sensitivities is a technical term (actually there are 2: transient which is short term, and equilibrium with is long term, and not observable in our 137 year history of modern temperature readings). The explanation you seek is merely a matter of definition.

Your 93% figure is a misquote. I don’t know what “the earth’s radiative heat exchange” means. It doesn’t mean anything I assert. Sunlight that doesn’t get reflected is exchanged at the surface where the sunlight hits. And while 70% of the earth surface is ocean, that doesn’t tell the whole story. More sunlight hits the surface close to the equator. And the amount of sunlight is mediated by aerosols.

“Work prior to Myhre was less accurate, equating 2X CO2 = 4W/M2 and 1.2C. And the TAR used Myhre, not the old values.”

Um, the TAR (2001) used 4 W m-2 and 1.2°C, the same values used in 1967 from the citation I provided.

IPCC TAR: “[T]he radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.”

“Yes, transient climate sensitivity has nothing to do with the oceans.”

I guess that’s rather convenient considering you have stated that CO2 “cannot warm the oceans”. It’s also rather odd considering even the most ardent apologists for the cause (see the Guardian article below) agree that CO2 indeed should be the cause of ocean heat content changes. Because if CO2 does not influence (has “nothing to do with”) ocean temperatures, then the idea that AGW has been warming the oceans goes out the window, and there goes the whole conceptualization. Influencing 1% of the heat change in the Earth’s climate system just isn’t going to cut it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/sep/27/global-warming-pause-mirage-ipccOnly 1% of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases warms the air, making the pause claimed by IPCC critics an idiotic sideshow … What critics choose to ignore is that of all the extra heat being trapped by our greenhouse gas emissions – equivalent to four Hiroshima nuclear bombs every second – just 1% ends up warming the air. By choosing to focus on air temperatures critics are ignoring 99% of the problem. … So where is all the heat going? About 93% goes into the oceans, much of which were largely unmonitored until the 2000s, 3% into land and 3% into melting ice.

“Your 93% figure is a misquote.”

IPCC AR5: “Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010. Melting ice [3%] and warming of the continents [3%] and atmosphere [1%] account for the remainder of the change in energy.”

That’s not what he said and we had this discussion too many times now. You don’t seem to understand how heat exchange works. Even though the heat flux is most of the time from the surface to the atmosphere a reduced flux causes a heat content build up. Somehow you can’t grasp this very basic concept …

The oceans are where 93% of the Earth system’s heat energy goes due to “global warming”, and yet not only does David Russell state that CO2 “cannot warm the oceans” except possibly indirectly (“though we have seen “no measurement [evidence] for this phenomenon”), he says that the models of CO2’s effects upon doubling only affect the atmosphere (1% of the Earth’s heat energy), not the ocean (93%), and ocean heat has “NOTHING to do with” models of CO2’s effects (Myhre’s).

This would appear to implicate CO2 as a rather ineffective climate control agent, wouldn’t it?

davidrussell: “[Myhre’s] F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) is no more a model than F=MA, or E=MC2.”

Myhre himself writes that his radiative forcing values for doubled CO2 are derived from “models and assumptions”.

Myhre et al., 1998http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908/pdfWe have performed new calculations of the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well mixed greenhouse gases
(WMGG) since pre-industrial time. Three radiative transfer models are used.

This work presents new calculations of radiative forcing due to the most important WMGG, using a consistent set of models and assumptions

Oh dear … you really believe in those nonsense websites and what they write, do you? And what’s most fascination, you probably look at websites with the actual scientific facts as being fake and telling lies. Totally twisted worldview 😉

To Sebastion and Andy_55: the Eggert paper was copyrighted in 2009. Eggert didn’t even receive is PhD until 2015.

Moreover, Eggert’s paper doesn’t seem to have had any impact on Myhre who expanded his F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) in 2016 to apply up to 2000 ppm. All of Myhre’s work is a “simplification” of a much more complicated phenomenon (remember Reinhart analyzed 200,000 different spectra). Myhre said his [original] formula was good up to 1000 ppm.

For those who think CO2 rising above these levels has no impact, I suggest you explain Venus’s temperature. And don’t try with “it’s the pressure, stupid” because pressure doesn’t have ANY impact on the temperature of a gas UNTIL/UNLESS the pressure changes. Under constant pressure, not at all… as a CO2 fire extinguisher demonstrates (CO2 under high pressure is at room temperature).

david russell: “For those who think CO2 rising above these levels has no impact, I suggest you explain Venus’s temperature.”

Mars has an atmosphere made up of 950,000 ppm, and yet it is -75 degrees C colder than Earth (400 ppm). Can you explain that using Greenhouse Theory and without resorting to the pressure/atmospheric density explanation?

When did I write that I was surprised that Mars is so cold? Its (1) atmosphere is almost 100 times less dense than Earth’s, and (2) Mars is also further away from the Sun. Those two factors can explain the temperature difference (-75 K colder). The 950,000 ppm CO2 on Mars vs. the 400 ppm CO2 on Earth would appear to be a relatively insignificant factor relative to (1) and (2).

WRT the Venus atmosphere — How do YOU explain that at an altitude from the surface of Venus where the Venuian atmospheric pressure equal 1 Earth atmosphere, the temperature is the same as here on Earth?
Surely this tends to indicate CO2 does nothing to the temperature of either Venus or Earth as pressure and atmospheric movement govern the temperatures. Or have YOU got another unreal model to cover that?

As you appear to like modeled proofs (no matter how worthless) you no doubt dismiss other OBSERVED ideas. If you still don’t get it please take the trouble to examine the “Radiative-Convective Model” that Robinson & Catling described in a letter to Nat Geo. While this is a simple model with one “Down” short wave radiative channel and two “Up” long wave radiative channels, it is derived almost entirely from “First Principles”:http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

The atmosphere and ionosphere of Venus have been studied in the past by spacecraft with remote sensing[1–4]or in situ techniques[3,4.]
These early missions, however, have left us with questions about, for example, the atmospheric structure in the transition region from the upper troposphere to the lower mesosphere (50–90km) and the remarkably variable structure of the ionosphere.
Observations become increasingly difficult within and below the global cloud deck (,50km altitude), where strong absorption greatly limits the available investigative spectrum to a few infrared windows and the radio range. Here we report radio-sounding results from the first Venus Express Radio Science5(VeRa) occultation season. We determine the fine structure in temperatures at upper cloud-deck altitudes, detect a distinct day–night temperature difference in the southern middle atmosphere, and track day-to-day changes in Venus’ ionosphere.

The temperature/pressure effect is still there (i.e. at the altitude giving ~1 Earth atmosphere the temperature is close to where this planet’s temperature normal sits.)

“Eggert paper was copyrighted in 2009. Eggert didn’t even receive is PhD until 2015.”

so what !

Its not Eggerts’s fault Myhre didn’t keep up with facts.

And your “god” Myhre, who’s feet you crawl at, ignored basically every other aspect of the atmosphere, to come up with a purely theoretical nonsense value which cannot have any relevance in the actual real atmosphere.

To Andy: I can’t and won’t engage with someone who is dishonest. You asked for evidence (a single paper). I provided 3 — all by Gunnar Myhre. I also showed how thermodyamics explains the GHE. Your position seems, “Well there’s no evidence for thermodyamics (e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann black body temperature/energy formula).

You require me to justify all the science on which climate science is based, in essence the physics of radiant forcing of Stefan-Boltzmann. And yet you provide no evidence for your claims other than something written by a German college student who hadn’t even started his PhD program at the time. His assertion is that more CO2 from these levels will have ZERO impact on global temperatures. I’m sorry, but this is too nutty to even consider. The only matter of controversy today about CO2 induced global warming is “how much?” No serious scientist is arguing “No future impact at all.”

I started commenting for a specific reason, to wit, in the hope that someone could explain how Reinhart was so far different from the mainstream Myhre? No one seems prepared to even discuss this. Indeed, your position is: “They are both wrong [but you provide no basis for this].”

Frankly you are an unpleasant person who argues incoherently and a sophist to boot.

“You asked for evidence (a single paper). I provided 3 — all by Gunnar Myhre.”

Myhre’s papers are all rooted in hypothetical “models and assumptions”, not real-world scientific experiments. That’s what you were asked to provide – real-world scientific evidence. You did not do so.

Myhre et al., 1998http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908/pdfWe have performed new calculations of the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) since pre-industrial time. Three radiative transfer models are used.

This work presents new calculations of radiative forcing due to the most important WMGG, using a consistent set of models and assumptions

Really? You believe that the models are failing because reality did something unexpected? Do you think those models are written in stone and can’t change over time? Do you consider F = m*a a failed theoretical model since it doesn’t work in all cases?

“Really? You believe that the models are failing because reality did something unexpected?”

Reality does what it does, it just is.
Models are nonsense, stuffed full of their assumptions (aka guess-work). Models can NEVER model the climate as climate is NOT predictable.
Or (along with your other beliefs) do you believe climate is predictable?

You are an unpleasant person who rants and raves and cannot provide one iota of real empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of oceans or of a convective atmosphere.

You rely of a god-like worship of a guy who ignores basically every facet of the atmosphere, to come up with a purely theoretical value of radiative forcing, that cannot be close to reality because radiation is nothing but a bit player in the lower atmosphere.

As soon as other information is put forward showing your god’s work may be wrong , you go the ad hom route….. and you call me dishonest that’s just sick.??

——

What I asked of you has been to provide one single bit of actual measured proof that CO2 causes warming of a convectively controlled atmosphere.

To Yonason: After sifting through your links your claim boils down to “CO2 forcing is invalid because it fails to take saturation into effect.” Your links are not to credible science sites, but that’s a minor quibble. The extra warming is not very much an artifact of “filling up the wings” of already existing CO2 molecules — as you suggest. What happens with more CO2 is that the “distance to extinction” of captured-then-reemitted [say in 15 micron bandwidth range] IR is reduced. So say that distance at 400 ppm CO2 is 25m. With 2X today’s CO2 levels, that distance would be then 12.5m. The significance of this is that there will be at 800 ppm TWICE AS MANY captures and reemissions than at 400 ppm, and thus more down-welling feedback IR.

As you know IR captured is reemitted in a random direction — meaning “half goes up and half goes down.” It’s the half that goes down that does the GHE. While the “half that goes down” doesn’t all make it all the way back to the earth, nonetheless there is for sure an increase of “IR going back to the surface” with increased CO2 concentrations [not to mention that such IR that doesn’t make it all the way back, heats the air directly]. This is heat in addition to that directly from the sun that gets to the surface and near surface.

All this IR back radiation (whether it gets all the way back to the surface or just heats the lower air), is heat that the earth must shed (ignoring heat sinks). The forcing doesn’t increase the temperature of the earth, which given constant insolation and albedo (and ignoring heat sinks) is always 255K viewed from outer space. But the surface does heat up. This is basic thermodyamics — an object will radiate to outer space faster that it will radiate to another object that is higher than absolute zero temperature and thus radiating back.

So the ASSUMPTION you have is that radiant energy hitting CO2 molecules only get absorbed and re-radiated at a different frequency?

Note 1.
Not all incoming solar (or any other IR) finds its way to a CO2 molecule. When the pressure is higher (i.e. on Venus) it is far more probable.
Note 2. Note that not all incoming IR that hits a CO2 molecule causes re-radiation.

CO2 is a linear molecule and thus has the formula (3N-5). It has 4 modes of vibration (3(3)-5). CO2 has 2 stretching modes, symmetric and asymmetric.
The CO2 symmetric stretch is not IR active because there is no change in dipole moment because the net dipole moments are in opposite directions and as a result, they cancel each other. In the asymmetric stretch, O atom moves away from the C atom and generates a net change in dipole moments and hence absorbs IR radiation at 2350 cm^-1.
The other IR absorption occurs at 666 cm^-1. CO2 symmetry with D∞h CO2 has a total of four of stretching and bending modes but only two are seen. Two of its bands are degenerate and one of the vibration modes is symmetric hence it does not cause a dipole moment change because the polar directions cancel each other.

In other words the CO2 molecule must already be in the correct state to absorb then re-radiate IR (all this taking place on a millionth of a second or less — including the re-radiation).

Note 3.
On this planet there is a very high abundance of water and its IR active region completely covers the very, very, very rare CO2’s IR active band. Therefore it is highly likely that incoming IR will interact with the water molecules (probably ONLY water molecules) as they are so abundant.

No doubt you have a model that proves this all wrong but that’s all you have in the AGW virtual world.

We have our skepticism…And real science is about skepticism, and not the lazy complacency of sophistry wrapped theory, and bullying with consensus politicking.
Our skepticism about changing the way the whole world works based on the modeled nonsense of some very loud mouthed alarmist people. Wasting peoples’ time, money, and futures. Some of these alarmist allegedly have some scientific training. The probabilities are ludicrously ridiculous, the planet is not in danger and CO2 thus far has NOT performed as advertised (since Hansen’s first appearance by people like you.

It does reminds me so much of when we were all going to perish in the 1970 ice-age. That was nonsense then, this AGW is nonsense now.

First Myhre is not defining climate sensitivity at all, which is a much broader concept. He’s only describing the first order impact of CO2 (and some other GHGs).

Secondly, when he talks of models, he’s describing different historical ways of applying HITRAN data (that’s actual measurements) to the real world problem of measuring CO2’s warming effect on Earth. The 3 models are really just different researcher’s choices of how many spectral lines to consider amoung the 400,000 in the HITRAN data base today for CO2.

Myhre uses line by line rather than “just the narrow or just the broad frequencies which the other 2 researchers limit themselves to.” It’s absurd to call this “just modeling.” It’s more “how much analysis is enough to get a useful result.” And it turns out that all 3 approaches are very close to one another.

Another matter to take into account is that Myhre considers that you have to not just take into account the CO2 impact for the tropics and leave it at that, so he nuances his work by melding 3 different tropospheric profiles (northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and tropical) for reasons explained in his 1997 paper (which I didn’t look into).

So you are reading the wrong thing into Myhre’s talk about models. His basic approach is to apply HITRAN data to CO2 for a value of CO2 forcing and then express that conclusion in a simplified formula that’s easy to apply (and valid) for CO2 concentrations up to 1000 ppm). Indeed all 3 models are doing the same thing, but the other 2 are just “lazy man” models that consider less than the full complement of spectra (which don’t make much difference anyway).

I’ve spent way too much time correcting everyone’s understanding of the science of CO2 warming the planet. And it seems I’m wasting my time on those who are unwilling to learn and in one case unwilling to be civil Worse, I’ve gotten nothing in return on my original inquiry.

david russell: “I’ve spent way too much time correcting everyone’s understanding of the science of CO2 warming the planet.”

It would not appear to be the case that this is what you have done here. In fact, you have made things worse for your case by concluding that models of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling have “NOTHING to do with” changes in ocean temperatures (where 93% of the heat energy in the climate system resides). By stating this, you have effectively undermined the entire paradigm that says CO2 is a primary climate constituent for this water planet.

“And it seems I’m wasting my time on those who are unwilling to learn”

Are you willing to learn, David? It would appear that you are unaccustomed to being challenged on your viewpoints. You were hoping we’d all just agree that Myhre’s modeled assumptions about climate sensitivity aren’t actually modeled assumptions, but truth. We’re skeptics. We don’t just accept that modeled assumptions are truth. Perhaps you should develop more skepticism instead of just accepting the work of others based on authority (i.e., if most scientists agree, it must be true).

I’m disappointed that you couldn’t take on the challenges, but have instead chosen to abscond. Unfortunately, the uncivil comments from those who lack patience for people like you didn’t help, I’m sure. I wish they didn’t do that.

Venus’ atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s atmosphere. It’s also closer to the Sun than Earth is.

Mars’ atmosphere is almost 100 times less dense than Earth’s. It’s also further away from the Sun than the Earth is.

Both Mars and Venus have atmosphere’s with about 950,000 ppm CO2 (95%).

david russell: “To Kenneth: Mars is not Venus. Venus has a surface temperature of 864f.”

I never wrote that Mars was Venus. Mars’ atmosphere is made up of 95% CO2 (950,000 ppm). Earth’s atmosphere is made up of 0.04% CO2 (400 ppm). And yet Mars is -75 degrees colder than Earth. Can you explain that using Greenhouse Theory? Or, can you explain this discrepancy without using (a) atmospheric pressure or (b) distance from the Sun?

Nikolov and Zeller, 2017https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.pdf
“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”

“I was asked for a single paper and I provided Myhre who has maintained his position with minor enhancements for 2 decades.”

Yes, Myhre has maintained his position, based on “models and assumptions”, for 2 decades. You were asked to provide a paper rooted in real-world scientific evidence, not models and assumptions. You did not do so. You are welcome to maintain your beliefs in Myhre’s modeled work, of course. That doesn’t make it any less hypothetical/theoretical.

To everyone: Let’s confirm that we know what the meaning of climate sensitivity is:

Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2). [sorry: box 10 won’t copy]

Kenneth I’ll play devil’s advocate here and stand-up for poor deluded david.
He’s correct in that he’s been a waste of time here, and yes he has very similar thinking to the other AGW true believer (for that is all he has) seb, in his failure to grasp real science here.

At least David Russell appeared sincere. He only had a few instances of making up his own version of positions/statements of others in an attempt to marginalize them. SebastianH, on the other hand, dishonestly makes up positions/statements that others have on a routine basis.

And at least David Russell has written: “I accept that CO2 cannot warm the oceans”. SebastianH not only believes CO2 warms the oceans, he believes CO2 is the primary determinant of net ocean temperature changes.

I really think it would be good if those of us on our side would refrain from calling people like David “delusional” and “daft” and other pejoratives. Let them resort to name-calling and insults. We should stay above that.

SebastianH not only believes CO2 warms the oceans, he believes CO2 is the primary determinant of net ocean temperature changes.

This is a made up statement. CO2 increase causes warming.

You are constantly making up things like this and attempt to distract from the topic at hand. Sometimes it feels intentional, other times I think really you just don’t understand what was written (either in a comment or in a paper).

SebastianH not only believes CO2 warms the oceans, he believes CO2 is the primary determinant of net ocean temperature changes.

This is a made up statement.

A made up statement? Let’s see, then…

Between 1955 and 2010, the ocean (0-2000 m) warmed by 0.09 degrees C (Levitus et al., 2012, below link). How much of that 9/100ths of a degree of warming was caused by the 75 ppm increase in CO2 during those years? How much was caused by changes in natural (non-anthropogenic) ocean-warming constituents? Provide the percentages (or approximations thereof). We’ll see if you have changed your mind about CO2 as the primary cause of ocean heat content warming since 1955.

Levitus et al., 2012http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstractThe World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy